Enzo the Magnificent Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Now then, who'd like a Airfix Tomahawk step-by-step? Yes please. Or better still, just send me the kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) And yet Monogram put Invader wings on a Prowler... And they were rightly criticized for it when they did! Yet nobody ever said that there was a plot against them when this happened Regarding the P-40 no problem for me in doing a step by step as soon as the kit hits my shores.. problem is I know zilch about the P-40 ! A review made by me would be totally useless !!! Edited September 16, 2011 by Giorgio N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Nick, if you read my post I never mentioned anything about the Trumpeter P-40, Sorry Giorgio, my question was not directed at you - it was a general request to understand the supposed errors in the kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary C Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Every time another old Monogram kit us superseded by a new Trumpeter one, its a nail in freedoms coffin. Every time? I thought that was yet to happen. I do admire their perseverence though, bless 'em. And yet Monogram put Invader wings on a Prowler... If they'd put Invader, and not Intruder, wings on the Prowler I think we'd all have noticed that. So what are the shape mistakes with Trumpeter's Tomahawk (in 1/72nd scale)? I've seen it panned generically but the precise faults are seldom set out. I can't say for certain whats wrong with the 72nd version. I've got both the 48th and 32nd kits and they both suffer with the following... The cockpit is waaaay to shallow, and, as there is pretty much no legroom under the IP, it requires any pilot to be both 3 foot tall and legless to fit in, The spinner is too short and blunt. The nose under cowling is too deep with too much upsweep at the front end. You should be able to trace a straight line along the belly to the cowling and instead there is a large step there. Rivets. Every single panel line is accompanied by a line of rivets that just aren't there on the real thing. It looks daft. IIRC it's got the wrong tailplanes belonging to an earlier varient but don't quote me on that. In short it's crap. It was one of their earliest efforts and it shows. I thought the only reason people don't really discuss it now is because it's common knowledge that it's one to avoid. And given that Trumpy have a near 100% record in scaling down all of their errors I'd be highly suspicious of any 72nd scale version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 If they'd put Invader, and not Intruder, wings on the Prowler I think we'd all have noticed that. Sounds like an interesting project for the WHIF 2 groupbuild! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Every time? I thought that was yet to happen. I do admire their perseverence though, bless 'em. You illustrate my point to perfection, its the same kind of semi-patronising tone that use to be applied to Japanese in the 60s and 70s before they overtook the western kit companies. Aw bless the Chinese, they try so hard but they're not real game players yet etc... They will continue to get better, get used to it. If they'd put Invader, and not Intruder, wings on the Prowler I think we'd all have noticed that. Meh, begin's with an "I", same number of syllables, close enough - either way if Trumpeter had done it we'd never have heard the last of it. The division between correctable flaws and unbuildable junk seems to be a curious one. In any event, the Monogram A-6-EA-6AB Intprowler is now superseded by the (not admittedly perfect) Kinetic kit. BTW, in the interests of accuracy, "perseverence"? Here, have this aftermarket "a" as a free upgrade. Edited September 16, 2011 by Jonathan Mock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary C Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 You illustrate my point to perfection, its the same kind of semi-patronising tone that use to be applied to Japanese in the 60s and 70s. Aw bless the Chinese, they try so hard but they're not real game player yet etc... Box of plastic dude, get over it. The last 1/48 Hobbyboss kit I bought was the Tornado F.3. The instructions wanted you to attach the LRMTS pod of the GR1/IDS to it along with the IDS weapons. It's hardly any wonder people take the mick and patronize them. When they get serious they'll be taken seriously. Meh, begin's with an "I" close enough, either way if Trumpeter had done we'd never have heard the last of it. Inany event, Monogram Intprowler now superseded by Kinetic kit. Given that you've just brought it up we've clearly not heard the last of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 The last 1/48 Hobbyboss kit I bought was the Tornado F.3. The instructions wanted you to attach the LRMTS pod of the GR1/IDS to it along with the IDS weapons. It's hardly any wonder people take the mick and patronize them. When they get serious they'll be taken seriously. Sure, its a mistake, so what are you going to do? Suggest a constructive fix, or stand and point while making baying noises. As easy it it would be to fill a model magazine up with "nah nah nah stupid kit" I'm guessing we'd not learn much in the process. As Nick says maybe forum discourse about kits is a hobby in its own right, only occasionally relevant to actual modelling? Given that you've just brought it up we've clearly not heard the last of it. I'm gonna patent this baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 I'm gonna patent this baby. That's weirdly reminiscent of an OV-10 Bronco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Well, it looks like a Mohawk to me..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 And Mohawk's bring's us neatly back to... Tomahawks. Airfix. New kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Speaking of the Trumpeter kit, Gary says IIRC it's got the wrong tailplanes belonging to an earlier varient but don't quote me on that. P-36/Hawk 75 tailplanes - they are noticably smaller than the ones in the Airfix kit. The other 'fatal' flaw in the 1/72 IIRC was the cockpit floor height - something that I care not a jot about as no-one will see it with the canopy shut! The raised panel for the radio hatch was a little problem. It doesn't suffer 'rivet measles' liuke the larger scale kits. I haven't checked the cowl line, but I'll have a look. The panel lines on the Airfix kit are not really any worse than those in the Trumpeter one in terms of depth and width - a step up from the Bf110 (Good depth, far too wide) and Spitfire I/Harrier GR9 (Right width, too deep). Still a little too deep/prominent for my tastes, but then I'd be happy with only access panels and control surfaces delineated! I actually think the plastic Airfix use, being softer/ makes them look worse in the plastic than they actually are. Big difference between the Airfix and Trumpy - the AF was £4 cheaper! £5.99 as opposed to £9.99 for the Trumpeter in Wonderland.(Although the price tag on my kit says it was £7.99 when first released) I've only just got in, so I'm going to have a play later. Edited September 16, 2011 by Dave Fleming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev1n Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 another one to add to my I-want-it-and-I-want-it-NOW! list. and I'll fill the panel lines if I dont like them..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary C Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Sure, its a mistake, so what are you going to do? Suggest a constructive fix, or stand and point while making baying noises. As easy it it would be to fill a model magazine up with "nah nah nah stupid kit" I'm guessing we'd not learn much in the process. Sure it's just a mistake. They're all just a mistake. One honking great mistake after another. Never mind magazines, you could fill an Encyclopedia Britannica with fixes for Trumpyboss kits. The aftermarket in correction sets for them is enormous. But I digress. You asked for a fix. I actually came up with a generic one a few months back, not long after their F-111 debacle. It goes like this... Step 1. Don't buy any more Trumpyboss rubbish until they get their act together. Step 2. Repeat step 1. The results I've had are nothing short of astounding! I'm gonna patent this baby. Cool, is that the forthcoming Trumpeter Invader? I like it, definately Mohawkish. Funny pics are . I've no idea who to credit for it but this is one of my favourites... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary C Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) The other 'fatal' flaw in the 1/72 IIRC was the cockpit floor height - something that I care not a jot about as no-one will see it with the canopy shut! The raised panel for the radio hatch was a little problem. It doesn't suffer 'rivet measles' liuke the larger scale kits. I haven't checked the cowl line, but I'll have a look. Check the radiator as well. I think they used one from a P-40E. Big difference between the Airfix and Trumpy - the AF was £4 cheaper! £5.99 as opposed to £9.99 for the Trumpeter in Wonderland.(Although the price tag on my kit says it was £7.99 when first released) That's the saving grace for Airfix. They are cheap which buys a lot of goodwill whilst they get up to speed. I saw the Gnat a while back, it actually looks quite nice, so things are looking up. Edited September 16, 2011 by Gary C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Sure it's just a mistake. They're all just a mistake. One honking great mistake after another. Never mind magazines, you could fill an Encyclopedia Britannica with fixes for Trumpyboss kits. The aftermarket in correction sets for them is enormous. But I digress. You asked for a fix. I actually came up with a generic one a few months back, not long after their F-111 debacle. It goes like this...Step 1. Don't buy any more Trumpyboss rubbish until they get their act together. Step 2. Repeat step 1. The results I've had are nothing short of astounding! That's really quite ironic because I came up with a similar one when it came to filtering out opinions on kits. It goes like this... Step 1. Do you have the kit? No? Then I'll skip anything you have say to until you have. Step 2. See step 1. I can't shake the notion that more time is spent blowing so-called flaws out of proportion on forums than it would take to actually fix them, but hey, if it works for you, go for it. Now boy and girls, let's have a Tomahawk step by step shall we? Edited September 16, 2011 by Jonathan Mock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Anybody else remember how, only short months ago, we were regularly asked, by one of the Trumpeter/Hobbyboss management, for our help and comments? Now, we hear nothing, and, please, none of that crap about them not caring, otherwise they'd never have asked in the first place. You can only have your face slapped so many times, before the message sinks in. Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiffy Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 I've no axe to grind in this one. Frankly, I don't have the energy to get involved in pointless, silly squables on an internet forum. With everything that goes on in the real world, is it really worth getting all worked up about something so trivial?. If you have no intention of buying a kit because you think it's bad/inacurate or made by the wrong manufacturer, then why get involved?. What purpose does it serve to keep banging on about it?. Speaking for myself, I think the kit looks quite nice and I'll be ordering one. I personally don't see Matchbox trenches on the pics I've seen. For the record, I have many Matchbox and Monogram kits in my stash (including the 48th P-40B) and I love 'em all because they're the kits I grew up with. I see a lot of potential in many of these older kits. Some may take more effort than others, but when the mood takes me, I really enjoy going that extra mile to try and make something look half decent and presentable (to my eyes, anyway ). I'm really liking the direction Airfix are going in. I think their Harrier GR.7/9 is a fantastic, great value little kit. I'd go as far to say it's my favourite kit of the year so far. So more power to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 That's really quite ironic because I came up with a similar one when it came to filtering out opinions on kits. It goes like this...Step 1. Do you have the kit? No? Then I'll skip anything you have say to until you have. Step 2. See step 1. I can't shake the notion that more time is spent blowing so-called flaws out of proportion on forums than it would take to actually fix them, but hey, if it works for you, go for it. Now boy and girls, let's have a Tomahawk step by step shall we? Not everyone can afford or is willing to jump in and buy any kit on the market, more so as some of the kits mentioned before are much more expensive than the new Airfix tomahawk. Therefore a modeller must sometimes make up his/her mind before buying. If the same modeller can see things he/she doesn't like from analysing sprue shots or seeing the kit at a shop or the model club, I believe this modeller is entitled to say what's wrong without buying the kit. As a potential customer I would trust more the opinion of someone who knows the subject and has decided not to buy the kit rather than the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the subject and has built the kit. Of course any comment or complaint needs some support, slagging for the sake of it adds nothing to a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Kunac-Tabinor Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Not everyone can afford or is willing to jump in and buy any kit on the market, more so as some of the kits mentioned before are much more expensive than the new Airfix tomahawk. Therefore a modeller must sometimes make up his/her mind before buying. If the same modeller can see things he/she doesn't like from analysing sprue shots or seeing the kit at a shop or the model club, I believe this modeller is entitled to say what's wrong without buying the kit.As a potential customer I would trust more the opinion of someone who knows the subject and has decided not to buy the kit rather than the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the subject and has built the kit. Of course any comment or complaint needs some support, slagging for the sake of it adds nothing to a discussion. Hi Giorgio, I think we all analyse sprue shots and form opinions, its just thats its also good to get a hands on opinion too. And I think theres a definite split here- because - even if you know jack all about the subject you can comment on the finesse of the moulding etc. I thinks its important to remember that for a lot of modellers absolute fidelity of accuracy may take second place to moulding quality, fit and general buildability. ( Personally I disagree, but I 'm sure I am a minority). Anyhow - its a hobby so whatever. Jonners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) The subject appeals, but I'll leave commenting until I see one that someone has actually built. For me critiscism can be subdivided thus 1. Does it fit without filler? If not, how much to get an acceptable result? 2. Is the outline ok? How much effort to get it into shape? 3. Transfers - acceptable? If 1 -3 are within my tolerences I will be happy. Now then what exactly was the colour of the undersides of the AVF machines.....................? Trevor Edited September 16, 2011 by Max Headroom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 So, em, where were we... ah yes, Airfix Tomahawk. Anyone who knows the subject got a hold of one and had a good look at it yet? Although I'm not a great fan of the machine and am unlikely to buy one it may make a good easy project to put together without getting bogged down in months of research and scratch-building/correcting if the parts are accurate and fit well. That and the fact it may help reassure me that Airfix are gradually improving in time for the imminent release of a couple subjects which do interest me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary C Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 I can't shake the notion that more time is spent blowing so-called flaws out of proportion on forums than it would take to actually fix them, but hey, if it works for you, go for it. We're free to share an opinion now? Why thank you, you're too kind Hey Jennings, guess what... With everything that goes on in the real world, is it really worth getting all worked up about something so trivial?. Who's worked up then? I've been watching CSI Miami and trying to get the intakes on my F*£$&%! Academy F-15 to fit. I must have missed that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Hi A good reference site for when you get yur airfix.. cheers Jerry http://www.p40warhawk.com/Models/Technical/Technical.htm http://www.p40warhawk.com/WW2_Era/Photos/Photos.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 If the same modeller can see things he/she doesn't like from analysing sprue shots or seeing the kit at a shop or the model club, I believe this modeller is entitled to say what's wrong without buying the kit. So if a magazine got people to write reviews by looking at photos and or peeking inside a box in a shop, you'd be happy that that was comprehensive, constructive, honest and fair comment? Sorry Giorgio but... nah. The whole point of this hobby is building and how something looks in a box as a set of unassembled parts to how it looks as a constructed, painted and decalled model are two different things. Jonner's Hobbyboss Tornado posts told me more about the kit than a bunch of guys behind keyboard having third-hand opinions ever would. If I wanted to know what its like to climb Everest, I'd ask someone who did it, not someone who just read it in a book and thinks they're Edmund Hilary. Its illustrative right now that about the only negative comments about this Tomahawk have come from places where the kit isn't even on sale yet and are based on perceptions from photos while those who have the kit to hand report a different story. But hey, like I said, personal preference, feel free to follow that kind of stuff if you get something out of it - I don't but cest la vie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now